But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. But women will be preserved through childbirth—if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation. - 1 Timothy 2:12-15

Why people reject this verse today:

This verse has caused quite a bit of confusion in modern times, causing many to write it off as not applicable for various reasons. Some claim it was merely cultural of those days, others say it was written specifically to the church at Ephesus (where Timothy was the pastor), and still others marginalize the verse or change its meaning altogether. 

The number one reason people seem to write this section of scripture off (and others) is that they simply don't like it. They inherently feel in their hearts it's wrong. And filtering truth through their emotional reasoning and cultural lens, they devalue and discard this section of scripture as irrelevant without giving it an honest consideration. This is where trusting in our own hearts is foolish (Prov. 28:26) and relying on our own understanding is ill-advised (Prov. 3:5-6). When something doesn't sit well with us in scripture, we do not alter the eternal word of God so it conforms to our beliefs, but rather, we are the ones who need to be conformed to the eternal word of God. It is we, not the Word of God, that is faulty (Isa. 40:8).

There are a lot of shallow reasons people give to explain these verses away, and why are those reasons so easily accepted by the masses without proper investigation? Because those accepting such reasonings want it that way, and a proper investigation may bring them back into an unwelcomed, uncomfortable conviction on these matters.

The intent of this article:

The intent of this article isn't to be exhaustive on all dynamics and differences between men and women, but to lay a good foundation for Paul's instruction here. Until we have a good understanding of that, it will be difficult to make sense of what Paul, and therefore God, commanded us in His Word when giving us these instructions. Not that we need to understand it for it to be valid, but there is nothing wrong with seeking understanding of His word (Isa. 1:18a), which I presume is why you're reading this. The fact is, Paul's command is simple, and few will argue with the command itself. The debate doesn't seem to center on what is commanded, but whether it's still relevant and applicable today. Let's break the verse down in the order it was presented:

The command Paul gives:

But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. - 1 Timothy 2:12

The reason Paul gives for the command:

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. - 1 Timothy 2:13 

 Paul's example of why this reason holds true:

And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer. - 1 Tim. 2:14

The reason Paul gives for the command is plain:

Paul's reason is simple, so simple that its lack of elaboration can be perplexing. When Paul states, "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve," as his entire argument for issuing the preceding command, Paul is simply pointing out that the reason for such a command is because that's how God designed it to be. In other words, this is how God, even before the fall, from the beginning, designed men and women differently for different roles and no other explanation or reason is needed. And though creation was millenniums before Paul's writings, Paul still holds God's intended order as being relevant, and therefore we should too.

Why this command is still relevant today:

The word "For" in verse 13 ties the accompanying reason to the preceding command. Therefore, if we are going to claim the command is no longer relevant, then we're tasked with claiming the reason Paul gives is no longer relevant either. The problem is the reason, as it is, without any spin or perversion, is still true today, for it is still true that Adam was first created, and then Eve. If this was Paul's reason, such reason is still true today. This statement is as true now as it was when Paul wrote it. Therefore, to write this off as no longer applicable ignores the timeless reason that Paul gives for the command. Furthermore, one must ask, if this wasn't meant for the present-time church, why did it make it in the eternal word of God, or why did God not at least point out its irrelevancy beyond those times? 

Churches that are more progressive-leaning tend to depart from the Word of God and claim that things have "progressed," causing certain parts of the bible, such as these, to no longer be applicable, and they devalue much of scripture as being sexist, archaic, dated, and irrelevant. Using this fallacy, they discredit the Word of God and exalt their own feelings and culture as the authority on what's true and apply the Word of God only when it lines up with those things. Those who do this more and more resemble those Paul writes of when he states "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor. 1:18). We who hold to the whole counsel of God's Word (Acts 20:27), recognize that all scripture is "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16a), and "men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Pet. 1:21b).

Paul makes a clear distinction between men and women:

In verse 14, Paul gives an example supporting his distinction between men and women and God's intended roles for them, therefore we should too. Now that we've established what the command is, and we've given solid reasons for why it's still applicable today, let's examine Paul's example, and look at the dynamics of why the command makes sense, and dive in further as to why this reason remains logically and biblically valid today.

The logical argument supporting different roles for men and women:

Western culture has trained men and women so that we feel equal in all things and to feel guilty if we think otherwise. But the truth is, men and women are not equal. In value, yes, and equal value in God's eyes for sure (Gen. 1:27, Gal. 3:28), but men and women have different roles. If God intended men and women to be identical in every way, He would have made us all self-reproducing, single-sex, hermaphrodites. But the fact is, He made us in His image, and His image consists of different parts: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All Members of the God-head share equality as God, but not all are the same, and each member of the Trinity has different roles. Yes, some of their roles are the same, such as their unified pursuit toward your salvation, yet even in accomplishing that salvation, each member of the God-Head has a different role. God the Father laid out the plan (Acts 2:23), God the Son accomplished His plan (John 19:30), and God the Spirit unites us with Christ (Eph. 1:13-14, Rom. 8:9). The Holy Spirit did not die on the cross, and God the Father did not take on flesh, but we rightfully recognize these things are accredited to Jesus. Is it so crazy then to think that men and women, who both were created in God's image (Gen. 1:27), may also, in reflecting Him, have been created for different roles too?

Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have different characteristics within the Trinity, so it is with men, women, and children who were made in His image. It is an undeniable truth that men, women, and children are different in many ways. Since, culturally speaking, people seem to agree that children shouldn't run the church, I will leave them out of this. But to deny the differences between men and women that would make them better suited for certain roles would be ignorant. There are good reasons why men don't compete against women in most sports. There is also good reason why women make up the majority of 911 dispatchers. The fact is, men and women are not the same. There are physical differences; men are stronger, women can bear children, men have male parts, and women have female parts. There are also mental differences. Generally speaking, men are more logically minded, and women are more emotionally sensitive. Men can compartmentalize and therefore hyper-focus on one task, while women can balance many tasks simultaneously. To deny that men and women are different, you would have to deliberately ignore the obvious differences between them as seen with your own eyes (Rom. 1:25a). If God intended men and women to be equal in every way, He wouldn't have made them "male and female" (Gen. 1:27).

The biblical argument supporting different roles for men and women:

"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." - Genesis 1:27, a design that God labeled "very good" (Gen. 1:31). This is before the fall, therefore the intent to make us different, i.e., male and female, existed from the beginning. In the following chapter in Genesis we have God, recognizing man does not do good alone, decides to make man "a helper suitable for him." (Gen. 2:18). From this we can conclude that both men and women are equal in God's eyes as both were created in His image, and indeed do reflect God, but clearly we cannot say that Adam was created for the same purpose as Eve for Eve was created to be Adam's "helper" but Adam, because he was created first, was never intended to be a helper, but a leader. "For indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." (1 Cor. 11:9). This is why, though Eve was deceived, Adam gets the credit for the fall of man throughout scripture. Adam was present when Eve was deceived; we know this because scripture records her handing Adam, who was with her, the fruit (Gen. 3:6). Adam represented mankind, not Eve. Therefore, his failure, not hers, was credited as being passed down to us all (Rom. 5:19).

The basis for different roles is also laid out biblically for marriage. Today, the divorce rate within the church is almost the same as it is outside the church. I would argue this is because of the same fallacy of not recognizing the different roles each plays. If everyone on a baseball team were a pitcher, would not the entire team fail miserably? While this subject deserves an entire article of its own, I would encourage those suffering in their marriages to consider the online Love & Respect conference put on by Emerson Eggerichs. For the basis of this article, while there are many verses point out the difference in marriage roles (1 Cor. 11:3-16, Eph. 5:22-33, 1 Tim. 3:1-7), I will simply point out 1 Corinthians 11:3 which states "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." For Adam was formed out of the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7), but Eve was formed out of Adam's rib (Gen. 2:21-22). One of the most hated terms within feminism today is to "know your place," yet this is precisely what Paul is pointing out, not just to women, but to men as well. Men today equally fail in the role God created for them, both in leadership and in marriage, often tempting women to try and fulfill that which they weren't designed for, thus creating undue stress for them that they were never intended to bear. Many times in counseling marriages, I've heard the wife state of the husband, "I just wish he would take the reins and lead this family", while at the same time refusing to let go of the reins herself.

Understanding Paul's example:

Though most of scripture credits the fall of man to Adam, as we discussed above, here, for this purpose, Paul, in verse 14, points out the actual logistics of what went down. Namely, that Eve was deceived, not Adam, and by so doing, Eve became a wrongdoer. Paul seems to be noting that even before the fall, while Eve was still unblemished, she was deceived, not Adam, resulting in her becoming a wrongdoer, with Adam's fall coming almost swiftly on her heels. Eve, deceived as she was, took the initiative to not only eat from the tree she knew better not to, but led Adam into doing the same thing. From this we can conclude that Adam also failed, but his failure was in listening to his wife who was deceived (Gen. 3:17), when he himself knew better (1 Tim. 2:14). This is why, I believe, Adam is credited with the disobedience that resulted in condemnation to all men (Rom. 5:18-19). For just as the coach, who represents the whole team, Adam, not Eve, represented all of mankind.

Adam's failure was not merely eating from the tree, but in listening to the voice of his wife. Consider what God said to Adam in Genesis 3:17a, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’...". Adam yielded to the voice of his wife instead of the voice of God, and Paul is pointing out..he knew better when he states, "It was not Adam who was deceived" (1 Tim. 2:14). Men still struggle with this today. So many times, husbands, similar to Adam here, would rather see their entire ship sink than contend with their wives. This is why I am convinced it is better for a man to live on a rooftop than in a house with a contentious woman (Prov. 21:9, 25:24), for everyone loses if he remains in the company of a contentious woman.

Logically speaking then, if a man is built by God to lead, and therefore less easily deceived, but for the sake of peace keeping, yields to women who were designed to be his helper, then it would be better to remove women from authority so that the man is free to lead as he was designed, whom Christ is the head of (1 Cor. 11:3), unhindered by his desire to keep the peace with the opposite sex of whom man is the head of (1 Cor. 11:3). Watch a room full of men listen to a loud, brash, brazen woman and often you will see all of them collectively submit to her even knowing to themselves when she is in error. I believe the modern-day term is "happy wife, happy life". That is why I believe the latter part of the command "but to remain quiet" (1 Tim. 2:12) is important. It's not that women don't have valuable insight, and many are even gifted teachers, and are part of the church inasmuch as men are. But it's for the sake of men, who are, from the beginning, built to lead those in their charge while simultaneously following Christ their head (1 Cor. 11:3); to keep man from misappropriating that same, in-grained yielding, meant for Christ, and applying it to women, who, consequently, do not have that same in-grained desire to yield (Gen. 3:16). Which brings me to my next point.

The reason authority is fiercely sought by women:

Because men and women were made different, the curse that came upon mankind because of it was also different between men and women (Gen. 3:14-19). Women were now to experience pain in childbirth (Gen. 3:16), and men were to experience hardships in their work until it kills them (Gen. 3:17-19). One notable difference is the last thing God said to Eve in these verses, "And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you." (Gen. 3:16). The Hebrew word used for "control" here is a powerful word, (in other translations the word used here is "desire"), and only used two other times in the bible. One is in describing the husband's passion to have his beloved (Songs. 7:10), the other is describing sin's desire to master Cain (Gen. 4:7). This part of the curse only affected Eve, not Adam. Women, therefore, have a propensity to control in the same way mankind has a propensity to sin. The reason women desire authority is that without it, there can be no control.

It has been my experience that, in Western culture, women view leadership as an entitlement, while men view it as a burden. It has also been my observation that women in leadership are often found trying to prove that they belong there, even when nobody is saying or has said otherwise. Men have no such inclination. I believe this is because women, because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8) and the accusation of their conscience (Rom. 2:15), are constantly cross with both, therefore they are perpetually trying to drown out what they feel convicted of, so they may feel good about having that which they so desire. We all can relate, for we have all tried to justify what we know is wrong so that we can feel okay about it. Men, on the other hand, do not wrestle with this same conviction, but in contrast, inherently feel the weight of responsibility, the burden that comes with overseeing those in their charge.

Women's preservation through childbirth:

Paul ends this section with an interesting statement,"But women will be preserved through childbirth--if they continue in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation." (1 Tim. 2:15). This is on the heels of just pointing out that Eve, not Adam, was deceived and became a wrongdoer. There are a few interpretations of this verse. But in light of what we've been discussing above, I believe women, at this point, may feel cast off, as if secondary to men in terms of valuation, but I do not believe that to be the case. As we have already argued, women, inasmuch as men, are of equal value and made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). 

One interpretation of this verse is that just as through the woman sin was first brought into the world, so is it by childbearing, the woman Mary, bearing the child Jesus, that salvation came into the world. Something a man, without a woman, would not be capable of. In fact, man had no involvement in the birth of Christ, for it was the Holy Spirit, not Joseph, that brought the Seed to Mary. However, I don't believe this to be what is referenced, as nowhere else does Paul ever refer to the birth of Christ in this manner.

A more likely interpretation of this verse is that Paul is pointing out the great value of woman through their God given roles provided she continues "in faith, love, and sanctity, with moderation" (1 Tim. 2:15). It's not saying women achieve salvation through childbearing, but rather it's pointing out the equal value women have applying these qualities in the context of of roles they are designed or, the most obvious distinction from men being childbearing. It's just as important for women to lead children (Prov. 1:8-9, 6:20, Tit. 2:3-5) in the same way it is for men to lead the church. While women aren't to usurp authority over men, the true fulfillment will be found through childbearing and raising a family. While this view is not without difficulties, it appears to harmonize best within the context and the whole counsel of scripture.

Additional thoughts:

I would consider myself a soft complementarian. A church that teaches the fundamentals correctly, regardless of who is teaching, is encouraging for me if it's accurate. Frankly, if you wait for a church to be perfect before joining, you'll always be waiting. Anyone who can accurately handle the word of truth and teach the true gospel of Christ, I find refreshing. Sometimes I even join my wife in watching her videos by women leaders in prep for the upcoming women's ministry, and the encouragement they give brings me to tears. Recently, my wife and I attended a bible study group led by a woman, as well as a church pastored by a woman. We fully knew this going into it, yet out of my observations there, and because God has brought me to this intersection quite a few times recently, came this necessity of this study. I have never really had a passion to dive into this subject, but being asked to partake in and support these groups has provoked me to dig in.

The fact is, my early Christian years were spent being discipled by my mother-in-law in the ways of God's word and God's grace. Furthermore, I recognize the many women who are heroes in the faith, whom God appointed in leadership and teaching positions. Mary Magdalene, for example, was the first person to preach the gospel, and her audience was none other than the rest of the disciples (John 20:18). Therefore, I say "soft" complementarian because it's not a deal-breaker for me. But I do believe any woman who is a teacher of the bible, yet feels entitled to a position of authority over men, may, by that very notion, be discrediting herself as one both understanding and following the word of God. My mother-in-law always felt uncomfortable teaching me. Yet she was who God appointed, as at the time there was nobody else, and I believe, because she always remained uncomfortable in that role, her teaching was true and accurate.